{"id":198037,"date":"2011-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011"},"modified":"2018-04-16T13:38:04","modified_gmt":"2018-04-16T08:08:04","slug":"hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Hindustan Photofilms &#8230; vs M\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hindustan Photofilms &#8230; vs M\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S. P. Garg<\/div>\n<pre>*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                   Date of Decision : 9th November, 2011\n\n+                       RFA(OS)73\/2011\n\n       HINDUSTAN PHOTOFILMS MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.\n                                                ....Appellant.\n               Through : Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Advocate\n\n                                versus\n\n       M\/S ANU ENTERPRISE AND ORS.         ...RespondentS\n                Through: Mr.J.K. Bhola, Advocate\n       CORAM:\n       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG\n\n    1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n       to see the judgment?\n\n    2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n\n    3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\nS.P.GARG, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.            Appellant Hindustan Photofilms Manufacturing Co.<br \/>\nLtd has preferred the present appeal against the judgment<br \/>\ndated 2nd August, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge<br \/>\nwhereby the suit filed by the appellant seeking decree for a<br \/>\nsum      of   `2,39,47,194.27    against    the   respondents,     was<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.            In the plaint, the appellant averred that it was<br \/>\ncarrying on a business of manufacture and sale of photo<br \/>\nsensitized products including still photo products and graphics<br \/>\narts photo produces. On 30th July, 1984 and 1st August, 1984,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS)73\/2011                                       Page 1 of 9<\/span><br \/>\n the appellant constituted respondent M\/s Anu Enterprises as<br \/>\nits stockiest in respect of two types of products and entered<br \/>\ninto an agreement which was initially for five years and later<br \/>\nrenewed in 1989 for a further period of five years. In terms of<br \/>\nthe agreement, dealings between the parties were on a<br \/>\nprincipal-to-principal basis. M\/s Anu Enterprises, as stockiest,<br \/>\nwas entitled to a credit period as well as a trade discount on<br \/>\nthe product value and additionally to an agreed commission.<br \/>\nAs stockiest, M\/s Anu Enterprises has to furnish bank<br \/>\nguarantees\/revolving letter of credit\/insurance guarantee to<br \/>\nsecure the overall credit facility. It is stated that consequently,<br \/>\nthe respondent initially issued some bank guarantees upon<br \/>\nwhich the appellant started supplying the goods. During the<br \/>\ncourse of dealings, respondent approached it for enhanced<br \/>\ncredit facilities against bills of exchange as they anticipated<br \/>\ngreater volume of business and that purchases would be made<br \/>\nagainst hundies to be accepted for payment of supplying of<br \/>\ngoods.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.        As per the appellants, the City Bank was operating a<br \/>\nbill discounting   scheme under which hundies could be<br \/>\ndiscounted forthwith by presentation before the date of<br \/>\nmaturity and the acceptors to such hundies would make<br \/>\npayment to the bank on the date of maturity for the value<br \/>\nalong with interest charges etc. The appellants accepted the<br \/>\nproposal of the respondents and started selling goods to it<br \/>\nagainst hundies duly accepted by the latter for payment. The<br \/>\nhundies would be presented to the City Bank which discounted<br \/>\nthem or paid or credited to the appellant&#8217;s account. However,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS)73\/2011                                    Page 2 of 9<\/span><br \/>\n the respondent did not honour the hundies accepted by them<br \/>\nand consequently failed to pay the amount on the due dates,<br \/>\nas a result, City Bank debited the appellant&#8217;s account to the<br \/>\nextent of such dishonored        hundies. The respondents were<br \/>\ninformed    about   the   dishonor   of   hundies    as     well   as<br \/>\nconsequential embarrassment and loss.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.         Further case of the appellant is that the respondent<br \/>\npromised to clear the entire amount outstanding but failed to<br \/>\ndo so despite repeated reminders. Under these circumstances,<br \/>\nthe appellant was constrained to invoke bank guarantees to<br \/>\nthe tune `6.5 lacs, `1,06,58,723\/- including the bank charges<br \/>\nlevied by the City Bank became due and payable to it.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.         The appellant relied upon acknowledgment dated<br \/>\n24\/05\/1993 of debt of `1,06,58,723.43 stating that they were<br \/>\nliable to pay a sum of `1,53,57,289.54. The appellant further<br \/>\nclaimed interest @ 21 per cent per annum from the date of<br \/>\npayment till 31st March, 1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.         The respondents pleaded before the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge that they never approached the appellant for credit<br \/>\nfacilities against hundies. Supplies to stockists for credit period<br \/>\nranging from 45 to 60 days were routine as the appellant was<br \/>\nfacing cash liquidity. Due to liquidity problem, it started<br \/>\npractice of receiving bills of exchange. The blank hundy<br \/>\npapers were signed at the behest of the appellant by<br \/>\nrespondent no.2 and that 30 stamp papers were sent on three<br \/>\noccasions i.e., 24th June, 1989, 11th December, 1989 and 6th<br \/>\nMarch, 1990. It was the appellant who was in arrangement for<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS)73\/2011                                    Page 3 of 9<\/span><br \/>\n bill discounting with City Bank and they were unaware whether<br \/>\nhundies were prepared and whether amounts were paid under<br \/>\nit.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.         The respondents further claimed that the appellant<br \/>\nwas in the habit of issuing bogus bills and debit notes even<br \/>\nwhen no goods were supplied for the window dressing of its<br \/>\naccount. No acknowledgment dated 24th May, 1993 was ever<br \/>\nissued by them. A sum of `195.90 lac was payable by the<br \/>\nappellant to them.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.         Number of issues were framed during the trial. The<br \/>\nappellant examined PW1 Sh.N.Shivan, its Manager to prove<br \/>\nthe issues. The respondent examined respondent no.2. After<br \/>\nan    appraisal   of   the   evidence   adduced   on   record   and<br \/>\nconsidering the contentions of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe appellant was entitled to a decree for `46,58,727.43<br \/>\nhowever having regard to the finding on issue No.2, regarding<br \/>\nlimitation, the appellant could not succeed as the suit was not<br \/>\nfiled within limitation and was time barred.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.         Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant has<br \/>\ncome in appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.        Short question which arises is, &#8220;whether the suit<br \/>\nfiled by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was<br \/>\nwithin limitation or the prescribed period of limitation got<br \/>\nextended due to alleged acknowledgment dated 24 th May,<br \/>\n1993?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS)73\/2011                                    Page 4 of 9<\/span><\/p>\n<p> 11.           In the plaint, the appellant in para no. 16, averred<br \/>\nthat the cause of action arose on all dates when the<br \/>\nrespondents acknowledged and promised to pay all the<br \/>\noutstanding amounts, especially and more specifically on 24 th<br \/>\nMay, 1993 when the respondent acknowledged an amount of<br \/>\n`1,53,57,289.54 as being the amount outstanding and payable<\/p>\n<p>by them to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.           In   the    written      statement,        the   respondents<br \/>\ncategorically denied this assertion of the appellant and stated<br \/>\nthat the suit was barred by limitation. No acknowledgment<br \/>\nwas made on 24th May, 1993.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.           The burden to prove that the suit was within<br \/>\nlimitation or that there was valid acknowledgment dated 24 th<br \/>\nMay, 1993 by the respondents or that the prescribed period of<br \/>\nlimitation got extended due to that acknowledgment was<br \/>\nheavily upon the appellant. Scanning the evidence adduced on<br \/>\nrecord, it stands established that the appellant miserably<br \/>\nfailed   to    prove     before     the    court    if   there     was   any<br \/>\nacknowledgment made by the respondents vide letter dated<br \/>\n24th May, 1993 Ex.PW1\/245.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.           In the affidavit Ex.P-1 tendered in evidence, PW1<br \/>\nMr.N.Shivan himself put exhibit mark to this acknowledgment<br \/>\nletter as Ex.PW1\/245. Learned counsel for the respondents at<br \/>\nthat time objected to the documents being exhibited on the<br \/>\nground of admissibility, relevance and mode of proof. It was<br \/>\nspecifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondents        at    that   time      that   the     documents       were<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS)73\/2011                                             Page 5 of 9<\/span><br \/>\n photocopies of the original ones. At that time, the appellant<br \/>\ndid not bother to place on record the original document, the<br \/>\nphotocopy of which had been marked as Ex.PW1\/245. The<br \/>\nappellant did not give any plausible explanation at that time<br \/>\nfor not filing the original document to be exhibited in evidence<br \/>\nbefore the Court. PW1 Mr.N.Shivan was cross-examined. In the<br \/>\ncross examination, he admitted that Ex.PW1\/245 was not<br \/>\nsigned or executed in his presence. It was signed at the office<br \/>\nof the respondent. Specific suggestion was put to this witness<br \/>\nin the cross examination that document PW1\/245 was later on<br \/>\nfabricated to bring the claim within limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.         The     respondents        examined    Sh.Ram             Khanna<br \/>\nrespondent no.2 who filed his evidence by way of affidavit<br \/>\nEx.DW1\/A. In the affidavit it was specifically pleaded that the<br \/>\nsuit was barred by limitation and the alleged acknowledgment<br \/>\ndated 24th May, 1993 is a crude forgery and does not bear the<br \/>\nsignature of the deponent. The acknowledgment appeared to<br \/>\nhave been manufactured to bring the suit within limitation. In<br \/>\nthe cross examination, no suggestion was put to the witness if<br \/>\nEx.PW1\/245 was a genuine document or that it was executed<br \/>\nby    the   respondents     and   contained       the    signatures       of<br \/>\nrespondent no.2. The plea taken by the respondents in the<br \/>\naffidavit remained unchallenged and uncontroverted in the<br \/>\ncross-examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.         During the long pendency of the suit before the<br \/>\nlearned trial court, at no stage, the appellant produced on<br \/>\nrecord the original acknowledgment dated 24 th May, 1993. No<br \/>\nexplanation       was   offered   by    the   appellant       about      the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS)73\/2011                                          Page 6 of 9<\/span><br \/>\n whereabouts of the original of Ex.PW1\/245. The appellant put<br \/>\nexhibit mark suo motu on the document at the time of<br \/>\ntendering evidence by way of affidavit.            No permission was<br \/>\nobtained to lead secondary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.        Perusal of the document Ex.PW1\/245 reveals that it<br \/>\nis a photocopy of the attested notarized copy of the original<br \/>\none. Even the original of Ex.PW1\/245 i.e., the document<br \/>\nattested by the Notary Public has not been produced before<br \/>\nthe Court. No efforts were made by the appellant to summon<br \/>\nMr.K.C.Sharma, Notary Public who had allegedly attested the<br \/>\noriginal of Ex.PW1\/245 to throw light as to how and under what<br \/>\ncircumstances,      he      had   attested   the     document.           The<br \/>\nacknowledgment is alleged to be dated 24th May, 1993.<br \/>\nEx.PW1\/245 a photocopy of attested document is dated 24 th<br \/>\nJanuary, 1994. The appellant has not explained as to how and<br \/>\nunder what circumstances the original of Ex.PW1\/245 was got<br \/>\nattested from Notary Public at a belated stage after about 7-8<br \/>\nmonths. There is nothing on record to show if Notary Public<br \/>\nhad seen the original acknowledgment at the time of attesting<br \/>\nthe photocopy of Ex.PW1\/245.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.        From the document Ex.PW1\/245 nothing is manifest<br \/>\nas to under what circumstances this alleged acknowledgment<br \/>\ncame into existence. It is also not clear as to by which mode<br \/>\nthis alleged     original    acknowledgment    was sent             by   the<br \/>\nrespondents to the appellant or who had received it in their<br \/>\noffice. The appellant did not produce on record any register<br \/>\nshowing receipt of original of Ex.PW1\/245.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS)73\/2011                                        Page 7 of 9<\/span><\/p>\n<p> 19.       The learned Single Judge specifically dealt with this<br \/>\ncontention of the appellant and observed that the appellant<br \/>\nblandly sought to introduce secondary evidence at the stage<br \/>\nof examination of its witnesses. Even the original copy of the<br \/>\nattested one was not produced and what was placed on record<br \/>\nwas a photocopy. The learned Single Judge was justified that<br \/>\nEx.PW1\/245 could not be taken on record as it was not<br \/>\nadduced in evidence in the manner prescribed to prove the<br \/>\ndocument. The onus lies on the creditor to prove that the<br \/>\nacknowledge relied on to save limitation was made within<br \/>\ntime.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.         At the fag end of his arguments, learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellant brought our attention towards one application<br \/>\nmoved under Section 151 CPC to file and place on record the<br \/>\ndocuments annexed thereto as Annexure-1. In our view, this<br \/>\napplication which was never brought on judicial record, does<br \/>\nnot change the fate of the case. Learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant fairly admitted that original acknowledgment was<br \/>\nnever brought on record before the learned Single Judge. Since<br \/>\nthe entire case of the appellant was based upon the<br \/>\nacknowledgment dated 24th May, 1993 to bring the suit within<br \/>\nlimitation, it was legal duty cast upon the appellant to prove<br \/>\nthe alleged acknowledgment dated 24th May, 1993 for<br \/>\nextension    of   prescribed   period   of   limitation   which   the<br \/>\nappellant, for the reasons stated above, miserably failed.<br \/>\nLearned Single Judge was completely justified in dismissing<br \/>\nthe claim of the appellant being barred by limitation. The<br \/>\nlegislature has cast a duty upon the court to examine on the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS)73\/2011                                      Page 8 of 9<\/span><br \/>\n touchstone of the case put forth by the parties and to decide<br \/>\nwhether the suit is within limitation or not.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.        We find no merits in the appeal and the same is<br \/>\ndismissed. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                        (S.P.GARG)<br \/>\n                                           JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>                                   (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)<br \/>\n                                        JUDGE<br \/>\nNovember 09, 2011<br \/>\n&#8216;raj&#8217;<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS)73\/2011                                  Page 9 of 9<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Hindustan Photofilms &#8230; vs M\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011 Author: S. P. Garg * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 9th November, 2011 + RFA(OS)73\/2011 HINDUSTAN PHOTOFILMS MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. &#8230;.Appellant. Through : Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Advocate versus M\/S ANU [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198037","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hindustan Photofilms ... vs M\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindustan Photofilms ... vs M\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-16T08:08:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindustan Photofilms &#8230; vs M\\\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-16T08:08:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1900,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Hindustan Photofilms ... vs M\\\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-16T08:08:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindustan Photofilms &#8230; vs M\\\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hindustan Photofilms ... vs M\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindustan Photofilms ... vs M\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-16T08:08:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindustan Photofilms &#8230; vs M\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-16T08:08:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011"},"wordCount":1900,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011","name":"Hindustan Photofilms ... vs M\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-16T08:08:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-photofilms-vs-ms-anu-enterprise-ors-on-9-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindustan Photofilms &#8230; vs M\/S Anu Enterprise &amp; Ors. on 9 November, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198037","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=198037"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198037\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198037"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198037"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198037"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}